• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Cases on provocation

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Cases on Provocation R v Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193, CA Two brothers D1 and D2 were jointly charged with the murder of their father, who had seriously ill-treated the younger D2 over a period of eight years while D1 was away from home. Allowing their appeal and substituting a manslaughter verdict, the Court of Appeal said the jury should have been told to consider the father's words and deeds towards D2 when deciding whether or not D1 had been provoked, particularly since D1 had returned home deliberately to protect D2 from his father's violence. Similarly, the courts had tried in earlier cases to lay down exactly what conduct could and what could not amount to provocation, but the Act set these precedents aside. The defendant can claim provocation where the supposedly provocative behaviour is not unlawful or unreasonable, or where he is mistaken (perhaps through voluntary intoxication) as to the meaning of the other person's behaviour, or even where the supposedly provocative behaviour was in fact a response to his own. R v Davies [1975] 1 All ER 890, CA A man D became jealous of his wife W's association with another man S, and threatened to kill him. ...read more.

Middle

On Wednesday DD and A planned to beat up V the following Sunday and break his arms and legs; this plan was duly carried out, and V died of his injuries. The trial judge withdrew the defence of provocation from the jury, there having been no evidence of any provocative behaviour during the week or at the time of V's death, and DD's conviction was upheld. R v Thornton [1992] 1 All ER 306, CA After several years of physical and mental cruelty D stabbed and killed her husband and was charged with murder. The trial judge directed the jury that the loss of self-control must have been sudden for provocation to be found, and that a response after D had "cooled down" could not give rise to this defence. D's conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. [A second appeal based on new evidence was subsequently allowed.] R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889, CA D had entered into an "arranged marriage" and had been very badly treated by her husband. He had been violent and abusive towards her; he had threatened to kill her and had once tried to run her down; and he had taunted her about his affair with another woman. ...read more.

Conclusion

But in determining (in the language of s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957) "whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did" the jury must consider the effect of that provocation on a person of the same age and sex as the defendant, but with ordinary powers of self-control. In some cases (such as Morhall) that might mean a glue-sniffer with ordinary powers of self-control, but the jury should not at this point take into account any individual peculiarities such as mental abnormality (which can be more appropriately dealt with through a defence of diminished responsibility) or intoxication. R v James, R v Karimi [2006] EWCA Crim 14 Dismissing two conjoined appeals by defendants convicted of murder, a five-judge Court of Appeal said it is the decision of the Privy Council in Holley, rather than that of the House of Lords in Morgan Smith, that is now to be followed as a correct statement of English law. Although in all normal circumstances the Court of Appeal is bound to follow a decision of the House of Lords (and is not bound to follow decisions of the Privy Council), the circumstances surrounding the decision in Holley were exceptional, and even the three members in the minority in that case had accepted that the majority decision settled the matter for England as well as for Jersey. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    It seems that if injuries result from the normal course of the game there are no grounds for a claim. Spectators have also to conform to many new laws that have come into force to help with spectator safety. The next aspect is to look at is the liability of the club.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    Defendant's in these types of cases are blamed to the same extent a person who intentionally commits a crime. The second type of intention in voluntary intoxication is basic intent crimes such as common law assault/battery, manslaughter, rape, 'reckless' criminal damage and Sec 47, 20, 23 of the OAPA (1861).

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    the term "malice aforethought" has provided uncertainties therefore the House of Lords in R v Cunningham removed the uncertainties and mens rea in murder cases has come to mean an intention to kill or cause Grievous bodily harm (GBH). GBH means "really serious harm".

  2. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    Assault is intentional tort and is creating fear and battery which is the actual physical pain one person inflicts on another. Assault and battery are the two most common types of tort.

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    The victim, a Jehovah's Witness, refused and consequently died. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. So, the abnormality here was the fact that the deceased was a Jehovah's Witness. To be frank, I do not care for the decision. In any event, you can see clearly that an abnormality can break the chain of causation - here, the girl's

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    It is therefore incorrect to say that someone has been prosecuted for negligence, or found guilty of libel, as these terms relate to the criminal law. There are, however, some areas in which the distinctions are blurred. In some tort cases, damages may be set at a high rate in

  1. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    unlawful force or Cunningham recklessness as to the application of unlawful force which leads to ABH. The next offence is malicious wounding contrary to s20 OAPA. This can be committed by the defendant causing either a wound (an external injury)

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    However, further to this it is reasonable to expect the negligent party to have been able to foresee that their act would be negligent, this was established in Bourhill v. Young (1943) and King v. Phillips (1953) both these cases established that the duty of care must be "foreseeable".

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work